1. The part of the claim for removal and reinstatement of the facility in the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall set forth the annexed list to the plaintiff.

1. In a civil suit on the part of the claim for removal and reinstatement of the facility in the instant lawsuit, the purport of the claim should be specified clearly so as to clearly identify the contents and scope of the claim. The removal and reinstatement of the facility sought by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have clearly identified the subject and location, method, etc. of removal and reinstatement to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendant’s performance of obligations

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit by the plaintiff is unlawful.

2. In light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the remainder of claims; (b) plus the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including the paper number); (c) on February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff occupied the instant store by the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the portion of (i) 60.435 square meters in the attached drawing among the buildings listed in the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 (hereinafter “instant store”) connected in order; (d) lease deposit 20,000,000; (e) monthly rent 2,310,000, monthly management fee 310,200; and (e) the period from February 27, 2014 to February 28, 2016; and (e) the Defendant could not have leased the above management fee to the Defendant on the ground that it did not reach the Defendant’s 15th month from May 18, 20.

According to the above facts, the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the store of this case was lawfully terminated on September 15, 2015 by the plaintiff's declaration of termination on the grounds of the rent delay of the defendant. Thus, the defendant is the defendant.